When taking an inventory of the myriad differences in the thought processes of the theist and the atheist, perhaps the best place to start is the understanding of how knowledge is acquired. Prior to the scientific revolution of the 1600’s, knowledge was said to be acquired through experience. This understanding pervaded from roughly 350 BC until the 1600’s when the acquiring of knowledge changed from experiential to experimental. For almost 2000 years, our understanding of the natural world turned on the axis of the Aristotelian discipline and the metaphysics of Aristotle fit quite nicely with the various monotheistic faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism…). When Copernicus, Galileo and Newton dismantled Aristotle’s understanding of the natural world through experiment, there was a major split between the scientific and academic disciplines and the disciplines of the various faiths. Granted, many of the theories put forward during this time have been subsequently accepted by the faiths, I feel as though institutions of faith continue to utilize the Aristotelian definition of knowledge (that it is gained through experience) instead of the modern definition (that it is gained through experiment). The theistic argument consistently (or seems to, at any rate) comes from a place of personal experience rather than that of experiment and I think so long as these differences remain in the obtaining of knowledge, then there can be little chance for a finding of common ground between the two systems of thought. Comments please.
Posted on: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:25:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015